User talk:Andrés Djordjalian/Archives/2013/April

Quick question

Hi Andrés,

would it be ok to you to replace the claim you added:

• That the principle of self-determination does not apply to this sovereignty question because, as Argentina argues, the current inhabitants are a "transplanted population", of British character and nationality, not a distinct "people" as required by external self-determination doctrine.

with the one I proposed in the talk page (based on this document):

• That the current inhabitants are a transplanted population of British character and nationality no different from the people of the metropolis and thus "not a people with the right to free determination".

I know you're not a fan of this 'listing of claims' approach but so far is the best we've got. If you have objections to this please comment them on the relevant section of the talk page and we can work them out.

Right now I'm having quite a hard time with editors Kahastok and Wee Curry Monster who are opposing replacing the latter's made-up claim (which fails verification) with the one I propose based entirely on the Argentine official source for its claims regarding the issue. This is how they usually work, either of them reverts or removes something added to a Falkland-related article (in hopes of maintaining the status-quo they imposed) and the other supports it no matter what it was (they follow a similar dynamic in Gibraltar-related articles, you can imagine why). In this case Wee Curry Monster's claim not only fails verification and violates WP:SYN but is designed, like virtually every contribution he makes, to subtly undermine the Argentine claim.

That discussion should have ended a long time ago, but their habit of automatically opposing every and any edit that doesn't come from a reduced group of editors (them plus around 2-3 other editors) means all matters end up being dragged for weeks until the editor who made the edits gets tired and quits. So far this tactic has proven quite effective for their purposes.

Anyway, I'll appreciate any comments you may have on this. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Olive Branch

I meant it when I said I would like to work with you; constructively. If you would be prepared to collaborate, then I'd suggest working togther in a sand pit. The reams of text in the talk page is going to go nowhere. 19:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Working together sounds great, but I rather discuss the issues on the talk pages, so that other editors can participate. If there is a specific point that you deem convenient to treat separately, we can either open a new subsection in the article talk page (if it is directly related to content) or talk about it here (if not). I'm confident that we can discuss the edits more efficiently and constructively in the future. See you around. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated

Andres, thank you for providing your opinion in the ArbComm case. I am not sure if it will get accepted (due to the time limit being for April 12; although I guess it can potentially be argued that April 12 has not yet finished in certain timezones), but I valued your honest analysis of the situation. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks MarshalN20, I hope you guys can use that opinion of mine about the subject. I didn't delve into the editing dynamics but—questionable reactions from Lecen aside—it seems to me that the process will be more fruitful if you work with the framework of including "revisionist" sources but not to the point of displacing majority historiography. For example, the Spanish article on Rosas says:

“ Gran parte de la historiografía argentina sigue considerando a Rosas un dictador o un tirano, mientras que la corriente revisionista le niega tal carácter, considerándolo un defensor de la soberanía nacional. ”

Needless to say, this is easier said than done, partly because we're not dealing with black-or-white concepts (e.g., What is revisionismo?) in spite of my comment treating them that way for the sake of brevity. Please let me know if I can help. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Once this whole ArbComm matter is over, please do feel free to come by the article (Juan Manuel de Rosas) as often as you can. Wikipedia is much more enjoyable when editors with different viewpoints contribute on the article.

Best wishes.-MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

On Argentina's claims

Hola Andrés, I see Wee Curry Monster and Apcbg edit-warred the re-factored claims out of the article. This was expected. Apcbg as you know did not even contribute a single character to the discussion but reverted your edits anyway. I'll ask the admin who closed the article if he would be willing to open an RfC because Wee Curry Monster, Kahastok and Apcbg will simply play the "no consensus" card to keep the edit out. I'll leave a note in Apcbg's talk page regarding his behaviour. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hola Gaba. Thanks for taking action, I agree with those next steps, and I guess we need to be patient. Your knowledge about the WP process is an asset, thanks again. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)